Fox blasts newest Dish Hopper in court, wants it off the market

The Hopper with Sling isn't about "place-shifting," says Fox. "It is piracy."

The ad-skipping technology featured in the Dish Hopper DVR has won accolades and also inspired a legal fusillade from broadcasters. Fox asked a Los Angeles federal judge to shut down the product right away, but was denied; now the issue is up on appeal.

At the CES convention this year, Dish unveiled its next-generation Dish Hopper with Sling. The device allows users to move content they've recorded on their DVRs to mobile devices like iPads and then watch anywhere, online or off, with a feature called Hopper Transfers.

This week, Fox lawyers filed a new motion [PDF] laying out their opinion about the new 2013 features. No surprise, they view the new DVR much like last year's DVR. Their brief argues it's a violation of both Dish's contract to carry Fox programming as well as a violation of copyright law. Even though Fox was unable to get last year's model knocked off the market, they have filed papers asking for the same punishment for the 2013 model: a preliminary injunction.

"Paying Dish for a satellite television subscription does not buy anyone the right to receive Fox's live broadcast signal over the Internet or to make copies of Fox programs to watch 'on the go,' because Dish does not have the right to offer these services to its subscribers in the first place," write Fox lawyers. It's also a violation of copyright law, they say, because moving broadcast TV to the Internet violates the "public performance right" in copyright law.

The new motion argues that Hopper Transfers will compete with higher-priced services like iTunes, to Fox's disadvantage. Fox lawyers write that the new features "will harm Fox's relationships with authorized digital download services."

"It is not 'consumer place-shifting' when Dish retransmits Fox's signal over the Internet, in violation of its license agreement, to get more people to subscribe to Dish Network," states Fox. "It is piracy."

The legal clash over the Dish Hopper has also led to controversy in the world of journalism. CNET's editorial staff voted to give Dish the top award at CES; but that decision was nixed by top brass at CBS. That network has its own lawsuit over the Hopper and wouldn't stand for its journalists giving an award to a product it believed is illegal. CBS was widely criticized for that move, and as a result of the brouhaha CNET will be barred from producing the "Best of CES" awards in the future.

Interestingly, CES features heavily in Fox's brief, as well. The broadcaster filed a DVD of video clips with the court arguing for its preliminary injunction. It includes clips of Dish VP Vivek Khemka discussing the original Hopper in 2012; a video of Dish CEO Joe Clayton talking to a CES audience about Hopper Transfers; as well as news reports about the new product from CNET and Fox Business Network.

The fact that Fox didn't get the injunction it wanted on last year's model means that getting one against the 2013 Hopper will obviously not be easy, but it's certainly possible. The ability to move content between different devices is the type of wholly new feature that caused the tech press to praise the new Hopper, but it's also the kind of thing that is going to make this judge reconsider the issues from scratch.

Fox and other content companies have decided that control over content on tablets in particular is something worth fighting for. When cable companies started introducing their own iPad apps, for example, that drew lawsuits as well. It's not clear why the original Slingbox never drew copyright lawsuits the way other tech devices have.

I might have a little more sympathy for the broadcasters if they weren't cramming so many freaking commercials into their shows. If you look at the amount of time a normal "hour-long" show was in the 1970's as opposed to now, the amount of actual show to commercial has dropped pretty drastically. It's gone from roughly 55 minutes of content down to 40-ish.

I sincerely hope that copyright law eventually reaches the point that once you reasonably "pay in" to receive some content, that's it with very few exceptions. The copyright holder is rewarded for their efforts and you hold a right to consume said content however you wish. I'd like the content holders to get it into their heads - and the law to reflect - that charging consumers repeatedly for access to the same content due to a trivial format change or some other contrivance is a load of crap that encourages the establishment of toll booths rather than the creation of content.

I might have a little more sympathy for the broadcasters if they weren't cramming so many freaking commercials into their shows. If you look at the amount of time a normal "hour-long" show was in the 1970's as opposed to now, the amount of actual show to commercial has dropped pretty drastically. It's gone from roughly 55 minutes of content down to 40-ish.

As more of these lawsuits come up the less sympathetic I'm getting to their plight. Just read their comments and "Paying Dish for a satellite television subscription does not buy anyone the right to receive Fox's live broadcast signal over the Internet or to make copies of Fox programs to watch 'on the go,' because Dish does not have the right to offer these services to its subscribers in the first place," just reads to me WANT MOAR MONIES NAO!

It's these kinds of actions that drove me away from broadcast TV to begin with. I have a big problem with supporting ANY business that seems to be dead-set on reaching into MY pockets for money each time we do something. Heck, I even go so far as to making sure that I NEVER buy new music CD's or DVD's due to this blatant cash-grab by some old farts in a tall building removed so far from reality.

All of you who watch cable/satellite TV buy into all of this crap and I wonder how you guys can stand the thought of keeping these guys in business just to watch another episode of The Walking Dead. I'd rather wait for it to show up on Netflix/Redbox or even the library before I give these guys a dime since I'm going to give them the least amount of money for their product.

I might have a little more sympathy for the broadcasters if they weren't cramming so many freaking commercials into their shows. If you look at the amount of time a normal "hour-long" show was in the 1970's as opposed to now, the amount of actual show to commercial has dropped pretty drastically. It's gone from roughly 55 minutes of content down to 40-ish.

Don't the U.K. and Japan, at the very least, still do 52 minute episodes?

I might have a little more sympathy for the broadcasters if they weren't cramming so many freaking commercials into their shows. If you look at the amount of time a normal "hour-long" show was in the 1970's as opposed to now, the amount of actual show to commercial has dropped pretty drastically. It's gone from roughly 55 minutes of content down to 40-ish.

And at the same time production values, writing, and acting have all increased to coincide with the increase in commercials.

I would rather have 18 minutes an hour of commercials and get shows like Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, The Americans etc, than 5 minutes of commercials and get anything that was on the air in the 70s.

"Paying Dish for a satellite television subscription does not buy anyone the right to receive Fox's live broadcast signal over the Internet or to make copies of Fox programs to watch 'on the go,' because Dish does not have the right to offer these services to its subscribers in the first place," write Fox lawyers. It's also a violation of copyright law, they say, because moving broadcast TV to the Internet violates the "public performance right" in copyright law. Not to mention that we didn't think of it first!

There, I fixed that for them.

Rinsewynd wrote:

And at the same time production values, writing, and acting have all increased to coincide with the increase in commercials.

What, are you serious? I sincerely hope that was sarcasm.

Rinsewynd wrote:

I would rather have 18 minutes an hour of commercials and get shows like Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, The Americans etc, than 5 minutes of commercials and get anything that was on the air in the 70s.

I'd rather that people with your taste don't get to decide what we watch on TV.

I might have a little more sympathy for the broadcasters if they weren't cramming so many freaking commercials into their shows. If you look at the amount of time a normal "hour-long" show was in the 1970's as opposed to now, the amount of actual show to commercial has dropped pretty drastically. It's gone from roughly 55 minutes of content down to 40-ish.

Don't the U.K. and Japan, at the very least, still do 52 minute episodes?

People specifically complain about this with re-runs of older shows: I've seen specific comments about cutting so much out of episodes of "The Twilight Zone" that the plot is no longer coherent. (super job, SyFy.)

also, this is an excellent lesson as to how a large chunk of our legal system works: "throw lawsuits at the wall and see what sticks!"

I might have a little more sympathy for the broadcasters if they weren't cramming so many freaking commercials into their shows. If you look at the amount of time a normal "hour-long" show was in the 1970's as opposed to now, the amount of actual show to commercial has dropped pretty drastically. It's gone from roughly 55 minutes of content down to 40-ish.

Don't the U.K. and Japan, at the very least, still do 52 minute episodes?

52minutes? Are you kidding, what would be broadcast the last 8 minutes of the hour? Much of North Europe still do 59 minutes episodes with no commercial breaks (This can then ofcourse become 1:30 hour episodes in the US, or be redone with US actors).

Of course the ad-based TV stations do 55 minutes episodes when doing native content, so they can fit 5 minute of commercials between shows, though most commercial stations do reruns of american shows that fit 2 1h episodes into an hour an half with a commercial break between the two episodes, or 3 half hour episodes into one hour.

Okay. So in history of business, when did defending an old obsolete business model ever work for any company, excepting the industries which legislated themselves back into relevance, or legislated their competitors into outlaws? Huh? Give me one example? Just one example of someone successfully defending an obsoleted business model?

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Fox have a fair shot at something here, even if they can't get an outright injunction? The present state of copyright law is just twisted enough that their argument could make sense, which bothers me quite a bit.

Isn't the idea that its illegal to retransmit someone else's content privately over the internet out of date? If Google and Amazon can do this with MP3s you buy from them through their cloud services without any permission from the record industry, why would it be illegal to stream myself content I've paid for and recorded over the internet? Sure the scan & store services need an agreement but not streaming stuff you've bought already.

Hey, FOX! Before you spend Gazillions chasing this down, get yourselves the new Hopper and a Sling adaptor, and try it with a standard Consumer-grade Internet connection. You will find (as I did), that the performance sucks, the transfers take FOREVER, and the device only just BARELY does what DISH says it does. I won't spend half an hour transferring an hour-long show to the three-inch screen on my iPhone. It's just plain stupid. There's no there there.

I returned the whole kit, canceled my subscription, and ordered DirectTV! Much happier with my Genie, and when I want FOX PROGRAMMING off-schedule, I utilize one of the many mechanisms they have provided for that purpose.

I might have a little more sympathy for the broadcasters if they weren't cramming so many freaking commercials into their shows. If you look at the amount of time a normal "hour-long" show was in the 1970's as opposed to now, the amount of actual show to commercial has dropped pretty drastically. It's gone from roughly 55 minutes of content down to 40-ish.

And at the same time production values, writing, and acting have all increased to coincide with the increase in commercials.

I would rather have 18 minutes an hour of commercials and get shows like Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, The Americans etc, than 5 minutes of commercials and get anything that was on the air in the 70s.

Wow! I can't believe you actually said all that and not intended it to be sarcasm. Absolute rubbish. You have to be out of your mind to actually believe any of what you said here.

I think the contract part is definitely being ignored by partisans in this thread. Just because Dish has a right to rebroadcast and DVR Fox shows doesn't mean they contracted the right to place shift it as well. The equipment is Dish's so it isn't the same situation that Sling has. Since Dish owns the box, they are falling under a place shift use of the broadcast signal that they didn't license, only the DVR portion can fall under the fair use rules that were setup with VHS.

Current DVRs allow you to fast forward and rewind, even through commercials. Tivo used to be dish nets DVR. Fast forwarding or skipping.The difference is the all the commercials are viewed for 10 seconds, verses being skipped all together. I don't see the problem. I just see corporate trolls looking for lawsuits.

My thoughts on TV nowadays are, if the networks are only going to pretend to produce quality programming (as opposed to actually producing quality programming), then we should only pretend to pay them.

Hey, FOX! Before you spend Gazillions chasing this down, get yourselves the new Hopper and a Sling adaptor, and try it with a standard Consumer-grade Internet connection. You will find (as I did), that the performance sucks, the transfers take FOREVER, and the device only just BARELY does what DISH says it does. I won't spend half an hour transferring an hour-long show to the three-inch screen on my iPhone. It's just plain stupid. There's no there there.

I returned the whole kit, canceled my subscription, and ordered DirectTV! Much happier with my Genie, and when I want FOX PROGRAMMING off-schedule, I utilize one of the many mechanisms they have provided for that purpose.

DISH + SLING = SUCKS

Dish is planning for the future. Stick it on a network like Google Fiber, Sonic, or EBP and I'll bet it works pretty decent.

Ah, so they just came right out and said viewing content you've already paid for legally but on another screen you own = "piracy." This is the level of buttfuckery I'd always hoped we'd see. Let the ridiculousness have no boundaries whatsoever--why introduce reason, sanity and fairness when the alternatives are more fun?

MyGaffer wrote:

I guess its time to outlaw the VCR. Its piracy man.

Jack Valenti tried that in the 1980s. But he had an alternative idea too, which was to have each person in the living room pay a fee to watch a taped show. These people will not be satisfied until every screen comes with a coin or dollar slot.

Maybe if you're making it available to anyone, or showing it to a whole bar full of people. Sending it from point to point doesn't. It's not moving it -to- the internet, it's moving it -through- the internet. And it's not particularly different from recording something onto an SD card then sneakernetting it onto your tablet or phone. Of course they don't like that either, but Fox and their lawyers can choke on a bag of Betamaxes.